On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:46:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what > >> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows. > > > By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real > > work'. Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow > > arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity > > API ever made ever. > > [ shrug... ] So use dblink.
Not with a non-PostgreSQL data source. > For better or worse, the FDW stuff is following the SQL standard's > SQL/MED design, which does not do it like that. What SQL/MED specifies along this line is purely a caution against making a specification without a reference implementation. If I'm reading it correctly, it's literally impossible to make what they suggest safe. Given those givens, we're free to do this in a way that's not barking-at-the-moon crazy. At least two inter-database communication links which work with PostgreSQL do this.. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
